batch_update_presentation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that updates modify the presentation destructively, whether requests are atomic, or any authentication requirements. The return type is described, but side effects and rate limits are omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with an Args/Returns format, making key information easy to parse. The parameter descriptions are somewhat redundant with the schema but do not add excessive verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three required parameters, including a complex list of request objects, and no annotations or detailed schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits how to construct requests, error handling behavior, and the exact return content, leaving critical operational details undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds basic parameter explanations (e.g., user_google_email is required) but does not explain the structure of `requests` objects, which are arbitrary dictionaries. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves users guessing about valid request formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation as 'Apply batch updates to a Google Slides presentation', which is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from read-only presentation tools like get_presentation. However, it lacks detail on what 'batch updates' entails, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_update_doc or individual update tools. It implies use for multiple updates but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.